As we all know, a dump of less-than-favorable information always happens on a Friday, and something of this magnitude — 71-year-old cancer survivor and war torture survivor John McCain’s health records — happened on the Friday of a holiday weekend — and the terms of review of them were curiously restricted. (Newsweek):
During his first presidential run, eight years ago, McCain disclosed hundreds of pages of records to reporters as he sought then to counter what aides called a “whisper campaign” questioning his mental fitness. In those records, medical personnel concluded that his years in prison, including solitary confinement, left him with no psychological wounds. Aides said McCain has had no mental evaluations in the past eight years.By the way, we never learned in February that McCain had yet another cancerous growth removed from his face:This time, a small group of reporters reviewed 1,173 pages of medical documents that span 2000 to 2008 over several hours in a conference room at a resort just outside Phoenix and a few miles from the posh Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, where McCain receives most of his medical care under a pseudonym — which reporters were asked not to disclose.
McCain’s most recent exams show a range of health issues common in aging: He frequently has precancerous skin lesions removed, and in February had an early stage squamous cell carcinoma, an easily cured skin cancer, removed. He had benign colon growths called polyps taken out during a routine colonoscopy in March.The cancer issue, while a relevant health issue to consider when electing someone to the highest office in the land, is not nearly as critical as the fact Sen. John McCain hasn’t had a mental evaluation in eight years. More below the fold.
Considering the long list of fellow Republicans who have many stories about McCain flying off the handle and his questionable judgment, the public has a right to know if this man is mentally fit to hold the high pressure job of President of the United States (look at the current White House occupant’s inability to admit wrongs, lack of concern about anyone other than himself and what it has wrought).
Conservatives have been documenting McCain’s unsuitability for some time now.
Defending His Amnesty Bill, Sen. McCain Lost His Temper And “Screamed, ‘F*ck You!’ At Texas Sen. John Cornyn” (R-TX). “Presidential hopeful John McCain - who has been dogged for years by questions about his volcanic temper - erupted in an angry, profanity-laced tirade at a fellow Republican senator, sources told The Post yesterday. In a heated dispute over immigration-law overhaul, McCain screamed, ‘F- you!’ at Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who had been raising concerns about the legislation. ‘This is chickens-stuff,’ McCain snapped at Cornyn, according to several people in the room off the Senate floor Thursday. ‘You’ve always been against this bill, and you’re just trying to derail it.’” (Charles Hurt, “Raising McCain,” New York Post, 5/19/07)Is John McCain 3 AM ready?***
Sen. McCain Repeatedly Called Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) An “A**hole”, Causing A Fellow GOP Senator To Say, “I Didn’t Want This Guy Anywhere Near A Trigger.” “Why can’t McCain win the votes of his own colleagues? To explain, a Republican senator tells this story: at a GOP meeting last fall, McCain erupted out of the blue at the respected Budget Committee chairman, Pete Domenici, saying, ‘Only an a-hole would put together a budget like this.’ Offended, Domenici stood up and gave a dignified, restrained speech about how in all his years in the Senate, through many heated debates, no one had ever called him that. Another senator might have taken the moment to check his temper. But McCain went on: ‘I wouldn’t call you an a-hole unless you really were an a-hole.’ The Republican senator witnessing the scene had considered supporting McCain for president, but changed his mind. ‘I decided,’ the senator told Newsweek, ‘I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.’” (Evan Thomas, et al., “Senator Hothead,” Newsweek, 2/21/00)
***
Sen. McCain Had A Heated Exchange With Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) And Called Him A “F*cking Jerk.” “Senators are not used to having their intelligence or integrity challenged by another senator. ‘Are you calling me stupid?’ Sen. Chuck Grassley once inquired during a debate with McCain over the fate of the Vietnam MIAs, according to a source who was present. ‘No,’ replied McCain, ‘I’m calling you a f-ing jerk!’ (Grassley and McCain had no comment.)” (Evan Thomas, et al., “Senator Hothead,” Newsweek, 2/21/00)
***
In 1995, Sen. McCain Had A “Scuffle” With 92-Year-Old Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC) On The Senate Floor. “In January 1995, McCain was midway through an opening statement at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing when chairman Strom Thurmond asked, ‘Is the senator about through?’ McCain glared at Thurmond, thanked him for his ‘courtesy’ (translation: buzz off), and continued on. McCain later confronted Thurmond on the Senate floor. A scuffle ensued, and the two didn’t part friends.” (Harry Jaffe, “Senator Hothead,” The Washingtonian, 2/97)
***
Sen. McCain “Publicly Abused” Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL). “[McCain] noted his propensity for passion but insisted that he doesn’t ‘insult anybody or fly off the handle or anything like that.’ This is, quite simply, hogwash. McCain often insults people and flies off the handle…. There have been the many times McCain has called reporters ‘liars’ and ‘idiots’ when they have had the audacity to ask him unpleasant, but pertinent, questions. McCain once… publicly abused Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama.” (Editorial, “There’s Something About McCain,” The Austin American-Statesman, 1/24/07)
Full disclosure and straight talk isn’t granting access to only 11 news organizations — for only three hours (from 7 AM-10 AM) in a conference room — and limiting it to only 400 pages of records. Reporters could take notes but not remove or photocopy records, and McCain campaign officials said the purpose of the restrictions was “to prevent the actual records from wide dissemination.” This apparently wasn’t a concern in 1999 when he running for president — 1,500 pages of both medical and psychiatric records were released to reporters.
Of course discussing this issue can make one queasy, since you can easily place yourself in the shoes of someone who is voluntarily forking over what is considered under the law protected health information. But consider this — according to a 2006 study in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, at least ten sitting presidents suffered from some mental disorder while in office.
What if a leader shows subtle signs of Alzheimer’s disease, psychiatric illness, or cognitive problems due to, say, heart disease? What if the doctors and politicians disagree — how should White House doctors balance the First Patient’s right to privacy with their duty to the country?Banter about McCain’s health issues can be seen by some as a partisan effort to “Swift Boat” him, so the secrecy surrounding the voluntary release of his more recent health history wasn’t surprising. I think the litmus test here is to ask yourself this — if John McCain had a “D” behind his name, and had the same medical history (and same reputation among his colleagues), do you think the Republicans would say this was a hands-off topic?“The president is a citizen like anyone else and therefore has a right to privacy,” Murray stressed. “They’re not interested in you knowing any chink in their armor.”
Question of the day —
Should the high road be taken (since we all know the GOP doesn’t give a rip and sleeps well at night) and not expect the release of such information? Do you believe a presidential candidate’s medical history should be a matter on the table when considering him/her for the job?
BTW, I found this on a DKos thread on the topic:
McCain’s undisclosed X-ray.
59 Responses to “McCain’s ’straight talk’ about his medical history”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Oh please…
What’s worse: a guy with a bad temper or a guy who is widely perceived as most likely to be assassinated? Is McCain the *only* political figure who has ever said “Go duck yourself” on the Senate floor? I seem to recall a few crackpots and crack-heads in office… in fact, lo and behold, they are still there. America loves throwing temper tantrums, and thus loves the people who throw them.
I think Pam has made the case for why Hilary Clinton is clearly the best candidate. She can control her temper, has no known mental problems or cancer, and no one seems to think that any wingnuts would want to kill her. (They will just come out in droves to vote against her, is the common scenario).
Did you just argue that ‘chance of assasination’ is a reason to not vote for someone???
Seriously, go fuck yourself. The rest of the adults here will talk about real issues while you’re busy finding anything with two hands.
I mean, crap, first it was ‘Electability’ also known as; Well, i’d really like to vote for the other party, but my friends wouldn’t think i was cool then.
And now it’s ‘Assasinationability’? i don’t want to vote for X because X will just be killed?
Yeah, how about this one: I will vote on the issues alone so that the democratic process will work. As i remember that democracy is to allow for competition of ideas and policy. I also understand that half-assed candidates never get much of a vote.
P.S. if anyone thinks this is a rant against hillary, you are wrong, i actually like her. i question her methods lately, but i’d happily vote for her if she gets nominated.
I really never thought i’d see a worse argument than electability. Just goes to show i’m an optimist at heart.
Foucalt–
Is McCain running against *every* political figure, or just against Obama?
Oh, and you make a very good point about the dangers of electing a person who’s likely to be assassinated. Who wouldn’t prefer George McClellan to Lincoln, or Nixon to Kennedy?
At this point, McCain is running against Obama *and* Clinton. And of the two of them (Clinton and Obama), she seems more suitable as a candidate.
Also, she has never admitted to using drugs (which distort one’s judgment) and doesn’t have people posting videos on Youtube about how she sucked their cock while smoking a crack-pipe. Just saying…
Finally, how the duck would I know if I prefer George McClellan to Lincoln? How the duck would *you* know? Are you Max the Two Thousand Year Old Mouse or something? I was not born when Kennedy got shot, and a baby when Nixon got canned. I have no clue who was better.
“Did you just argue that ‘chance of assasination’ is a reason to not vote for someone???”
Yes, asshat, I did argue that. It’s as good an argument as Pam’s argument that McCain might die of his melanoma…
Pure speculative crap is my middle name, but I share it with many others apparently.
“Assassinability”–I LIKE that! It has a nice ring to it. Hilary Clinton is the least assassinable candidate at this point in the game, according to the sexists who dismiss the crackpots who might be lurking in the shadows after they finish with Obama.
The temper, I’m okay with. But there’s something harder to put my finger on, in the way he flip-flopped on torture, hired Rove, and sucked up to the religious right who he used to criticize. It may be that he just wants power so badly, he’s doing what he feels he must. But to me, it feels like the signs of personality change that can go with health issues. Perhaps his “will”, as it were, is deteriorating. None of that is something we want in a President.
Cat, I think the point is that the *media* bring up assassination, but don’t say anything about McCain’s condition.
And two good legs to the diagnostic triad for
the euphemistically cognitive decline
thing or Alzheimer’s.
Classic.
Critical that he be actually tested*
before we even faintly consider another mental cripple
in the Oval office And..in charge.
Before the GOP..blessings be…actually digs itself a
final resting place.
[* there all sorts of excellent metrics - very well
vetted tests- to pick up even early declines.
Remember this stuff NEVER gets better…
only worse.]
While these outbursts of McCain’s may or may not indicate an underlying psychological condition I think it is more relevant to question why they caused such strong reactions among his Republican peers. I find it hard to believe these men would feel so seriously threatened by being called a “f*cking jerk”. These are men who think nothing of screwing over the poor and dispossessed, surely they’re past getting their feelings hurt by name-calling?
No, I think they’re leaving out some important, even crucial details regarding these outbursts. Post-traumatic stress disorder is more than being hot-tempered (which McCain was, even before being a POW). Knowing only that he “publicly abused” another senator is not enough to demonstrate the danger we would face should a mentally unstable candidate be elected president. Given the Right’s propensity to excuse such outrageous behavior on the part of their own, mere taunts and insults will be depicted as evidence of his manly authority and commanding demeanor. Makes me sick that the Republicans who might have more telling evidence will inevitably keep mum to protect their careers.
Well, maybe a little satire or like that but have YOU looked into the anger thing recently?
Jeez..at least be polite.
At least with McCain the evil is plain as day to see. With Hillary and Obama, it’s much more subtle, especially with the latter.
When someone tells me to “go fuck myself,” I reply with what I believe to be a suitable response. If Cat of many Faces had been polite, then I would not feel compelled to call him or her an asshat.
As for you, has_been, when you compose arguments on a blog, you might try to spare us the poetic format. It is hard to read and finally maddening:
“And two good legs to the diagnostic triad for
the euphemistically cognitive decline
thing or Alzheimer’s.
Classic.
Critical that he be actually tested*
before we even faintly consider another mental cripple
in the Oval office And..in charge.
Before the GOP..blessings be…actually digs itself a
final resting place.
Let us go then, you and I,
When the evening is spread out against the sky
Like a patient etherized upon a table;
Let us go, through certain half-deserted streets,
The muttering retreats
Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels
And sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells:
Streets that follow like a tedious argument
Of insidious intent
To lead you to an overwhelming question . . .
Oh, do not ask, “What is it?”
Let us go and make our visit.
My humble leavings are generally for the poster,
not the thread -but it is Saturday-
but I was so taken aback with your inital comment…
That I stayed. I guess I didn’t know why.
But here’s Pam from an earlier post
I reckon I musta thought your words,
at some remove, perhaps…mean something.
As for the ad hominem on my miserable
style of composition. Sorry, pal…it’s just me.
Sincerely, has-been, of course.
[*my bolds]
My initial post meant to point out the irony and patent hypocrisy of lambasting Clinton for her assassination remarks while insinuating that McCain might die of cancer or have a mental breakdown in office.
It’s like the pot calling the kettle black! (I hope no one will view this metaphor as a racial insult to Pam).
I asked Auguste in another thread to explain *who* in the current Administration is responsible for assigning extra security to Obama. Is his perceived edge in assassinability a documented fact (has he received more death threats than Clinton, for example)? Or is his lead in that area a “pundit’s call,” where some old boy decides that someone is more likely to take down a black man than a woman or an old geezer?
White fantasies of blacks being killed are not necessarily advantageous to Obama, so if the Bush Administration is saying “Put more security on his ass because he’s black,” then this seems problematic to me. On the other hand, if he really *is* receiving a disproportionate amount of death threats, then that seems like a problem (not for Obama, but for America).
Why doesn’t someone count how many death threats Dick Cheney and G.W. Bush have received??? I mean, WTF, if anyone deserves to be taken down….
From my understanding, Foucault, the insane mutterings began instantly on all the white supremacist websites, etc. the MOMENT Obama announced his candidacy. Thus, the early and extra amount of security detail. This was quite widely reported, even on the MSM.
I hate to break it to you, but a lot of people do die from melanoma each year.There has also been ample discussion, in light of the McCain topic, of the lack of full disclosure by Paul Tsongas back in 1992, so the matter is not a partisan one.
Oh really? So I guess the “bitch” and “cunt” comments sprinkled liberally all over the internet about Clinton went unnoticed by those who make the decision to assign extra security?
I guess the ass-hat statistics sites calculating the probability of her assassination were not a tip-off?
http://www.whotokill.org/MarkData.cfm?MarkID=1415
I guess the people who threatened to kill her weren’t enough to justify adding some extra manpower to protect her ostensibly “insignificant” female body?
http://ucsense.blogspot.com/2007/05/threat-to-kill-hillary-clinton.html
Spare me the sexist excuses. People care more about men than about women. Obama should be flattered that someone cares enough to protect his sorry ass.
I guess this flew under the radar?
http://www.whotokill.org/MarkData.cfm?MarkID=1415
Pam,
I don’t know how McCain’s odds of dying of cancer are any more relevant than Obama’s odds of being assassinated. Both of these “possibilities” seem highly unlikely to me, and both seem highly irrelevant to the election process.
We will all die some day. That is a fact. Whether it happens sooner or later is the mystery…
In the meantime, I think we can all agree that women tend to outlive men statistically speaking. Women are also less prone to violent outbursts and can endure higher thresh holds of pain, according to popular stereotypes. Of the three candidates left in the race, she is probably the one who will live the longest. The choice is clear.
Cheerios
Shampoo
The funniest (funny-strange of course, not funny-haha) thing about the McSame campaign is also one of the scariest, which is: how the Repuke powers-that-be can seriously expect that their minions will follow so blindly and unquestioningly whatever orders they’re given.
Eight years ago, the Rovians started a whole slew of whispering campaigns about McCain, one of which was the one Ms Spaulding cites here, the “he-was-made-crazy-by-his-captivity” meme. The others included, but were not limited to: he sold out his country when tortured; he’s a brainwashed Manchurian candidate and is awaiting his trigger; and of course my very favorite, he had a Black love-child, the result of a long affair in which he was cheating on his wife (he and his wife had adopted a little girl from Bangla Desh).
Now that he’s their last great hope, of course, all of that must now go by the wayside. Every single claim must now be at least forgotten, and at best completely reversed. All of those reasons that were so damning and disqualifying eight years ago, not merely longer operative, but each one replaced by its diametric polar opposite. Now, this makes it patently obvious to anyone with a partially functioning brain that at least one of each of the two sets of contrary claims must be a complete and total lie. And I tend to get a little… put out… by anyone I catch lying to me, even about something inconsequential. I prefer not to do business, let alone anything more significant in life, with such people.
So: I don’t know which is scarier – the thought that the Rethugs clearly believe their followers to be that stupid and/or unconcerned with actual facts… or the thought that so many of them actually are.
I understand – vaguely — the concept of the “low-information voter.” But that somewhere north of 40% of the voting population would even consider this clown boggles my mind.
yow — sorry, that was a shopping list copy/paste, not a secret code
Note to highly zealous IP attorneys — not posting the required “®” was an unintentional oversight, not an intentional pirating, and the fault was entirely mine, not the blog’s; I accept full responsibility…
And no, I don’t eat the Cheerios with shampoo, nor wash my hair with grainy goodness.
“And no, I don’t eat the Cheerios with shampoo, nor wash my hair with grainy goodness.”
I bet you are secretly John McCain, aren’t you?
Funny you should mention all the stuff about his past that was supposed to make him unelectable 8 years ago. I have no memory of that, so the Republican brain drain machine must be working. Meanwhile, I remember all of the Democrats who got the boot. Except Gore. I will never understand 2004…
And what’s REALLY messed up is that some TV network thinks Americans will enjoy watching a show called “RECOUNT,” about the 2000 disenfranchisement of Florida voters, and about the stealing of the White House. No wonder this country is in the toilet these days.
Isn’t anyone going to point out the obvious difference between having a medical history that unfortunately puts you at risk of dying from a disease and being targeted for death by sapient adult human beings because of who you are?
Let’s say it all together: if anyone chooses not to vote for Obama for fear he might be the target of an assassin, then the assassin has already achieved his goal.
Great. A commenter who was born after the decade during which political assassinations were common (and who apparently has no interest in that history) lecturing people about full disclosure of candidate chances for morbidity and mortality. (Note that by this criterion Obama is probably ahead, since everyone except the secret service is well aware that he’s a target.)
Dr. Psycho has hit the nail on the head. The assassin would only be saved some work and jail time if we just let fear of being hurt keep a candidate out.
“Isn’t anyone going to point out the obvious difference between having a medical history that unfortunately puts you at risk of dying from a disease and being targeted for death by sapient adult human beings because of who you are?”
Get a life. In some other progressive blogosphere moment, I am sure that you (and Pam) would argue that we should not allow the evil Health Insurance companies to discriminate against people based on genetics. Black people in particular are more prone to diseases like asthma and breast cancer and AIDS and god knows what else than white people. And I am sure you would be against age-based discrimination.
But all of a sudden, because John McCain is old and white instead of old and black, he is fair game for the very forms of discrimination that you would be ashamed to utter in other contexts.
McCain seriously got into a scuffle with a 92-year-old man? I mean, Thurmond was one of the most repellent, racist turds ever, but loathsome though he was, who the hell gets into a scuffle with a 92-year-old man?
What’s with this pseudonym crap? How do I sign up for that? Talk about Health Care Privacy. Oh, that’s right. SIlly me. Special rules are just for special people - not plebes like me.
“Let’s say it all together: if anyone chooses not to vote for Obama for fear he might be the target of an assassin, then the assassin has already achieved his goal.”
I’m not going to vote for Obama because I don’t like him, not because I think he’s wearing an invisible bull-eye. I am also not *not* going to vote for McCain because he’s an older man who was held captive by Viet Kong types over thirty years ago.
By this fucked up logic, we should blame the many Arab men who have been held captive at Guantanemo for the mental imbalances and other PTSDs they will likely experience if they are ever released. Who is to say that some of those dudes can’t recover well enough to become the next President of Al-Jezeera or Al Quaeda? Come on, let’s give people a chance! It’s the American way.
Pam, would you mind removing this “Foucault” person or perhaps replacing its rants with bunnies? This person is an offensive and abusive jerk and a thread hog.
Thanks.
Instead of whining, maybe you can refrain from reading threads that don’t seem to be of interest to you, except when it comes to trying to exclude others from them.
And as a self-reported survivor of breast cancer, you should be concerned that people on this thread are advocating discrimination based on genetic information and prior medical histories. Wake up, kitty!
Wow. Now thinking someone shouldn’t have their finger on a nuclear trigger is blaming them for having suffered psychological damage.
I think the pseudonym should really be De Man
As a cancer survivor, I am painfully aware of what a recurring cancer diagnosis means. Thus my interest in this topic and this thread, Foucault.
It should be assumed that McCain will continue to be diagnosed with and treated for cancer in one form or another throughout his term. The choice of his VP is of critical importance because, most likely, the VP will end up taking the lead at some point while McCain undergoes more treatment or becomes terminal.
Should a 72 year old person be denied the role of president because of a long, recurring struggle with cancer? In my opinion, yes. Cancer can be a pretty distracting event, to say the least.
It’s not a question of depriving someone of the opportunity to be president. It’s a question of relative qualifications. When it comes to health, Obama is a much better risk than McCain. Good health isn’t the only criterion for a president, but it’s pretty important.
The baseline risk for assassination is very low, especially when it comes to a sitting POTUS. Even if we suppose that Obama is twice as likely to be assassinated as any other candidate, we’re talking about one in a million instead of one in two million.
Whereas about a third of people diagnosed with melanomas as large and deep as the one(s) McCain had removed in 2000 will die within a decade of diagnosis.
McCain’s cancer may have been even worse than we were lead to believe:
But buried in 1,173 pages of medical records that McCain’s campaign released before the conference call was something not previously made public: Two pathologists at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology who examined the melanoma specimen from McCain’s left temple in 2000 suggested there were two melanomas on his temple, not one, as his doctors had said publicly at the time.
McCain’s campaign and doctors did not respond Friday to a request for clarification of the Armed Forces pathology report and the classification of the melanoma. But two experts in the field who reviewed the report said it was unclear whether the melanoma on McCain’s temple had metastasized from another, or whether there was one new primary melanoma.
If the spread was through the nearby melanoma, then there is greater risk to McCain than the public has been led to believe, said Dr. Lynn Schuchter, a melanoma expert at the University of Pennsylvania, and Dr. Mohammed Kashani-Sabet, director of the Melanoma Center at UC San Francisco. [SFgate]
If McCain is still cancer-free today, that’s a good sign. However, even if his doctors have beaten back the melanoma successfully the last four or five times it has cropped up, there’s no guarantee their luck will hold out. Not every melanoma can be spotted, even by the most thorough physician.
Look, you have to follow the rules of the contest. If McCain received the delegates he needed, and if he has received a clean bill of health, then power to him.
We can’t base our decisions about people based on hypothetical scenarios or worst-case statistics. If we did, then I’m sure many of us would be genetically unfit to do just about anything. We can’t justify health-based discrimination against one person and oppose it for a host of others.
The presidential contest sets a symbolic example for all sorts of other contests. And if you say McCain shouldn’t run for president because of his preexisting melanoma then someone else can come along and say that badkitty shouldn’t have health insurance because of her preexisting breast cancer. It is that simple. I am surprised that seemingly smart people don’t understand the importance of opposing all health-based discrimination, at all levels.
“It should be assumed that McCain will continue to be diagnosed with and treated for cancer in one form or another throughout his term.”
There’s a world of difference between repeated instances of squamous cell skin cancer and melanoma, though. Squamous cell growths are almost never terribly serious business if you’re going to a good dermatologist on the recommended accelerated schedule. It doesn’t get much more non-threatening than squamous cell skin cancer if you’ve got good health insurance and aren’t pathologically resistant to seeing the doctor or being treated. If that’s all they’ve been finding in the past five years, it’s not likely to be that much of a distraction for the next four. Unlike, say, his wife’s habit of wearing make-up like a trollop.
I’m not trying to be President of the United States, Foucault. That bar should be set considerably higher. It’s a very stressful position and taking 6-8 months off for chemotherapy is not possible. Sure, any President could be diagnosed with cancer at any point during their time in office, but in McCain’s case, we’re deliberately selecting someone who has a very poor health history.
McCain has had Stage 2 (possibly Stage 3) melanoma 4 times, plus “numerous” squamous cell lesions removed. I think this is a legitimate concern.
“Sure, any President could be diagnosed with cancer at any point during their time in office, but in McCain’s case, we’re deliberately selecting someone who has a very poor health history.”
Well don’t worry, “we” haven’t selected him yet. Unless you know something I don’t.
But unless Obama and Clinton join forces, I think you are right: there is a good possibility that the elderly McCain could win. And god forbid if he chooses, say, Dick Cheney as his VEEP! Can that happen: can a president have the same vice president as his predecessor?
I think I could be persuaded to change my mind about the health based discrimination argument if this were the case…
But in all honesty, I think that far worse things could happen then allowing an elderly cancer survivor to run for President. I mean, we could have a younger dry drunk in office, supervised by a known alcoholic who shoots his friends!
Preying Mantis, don’t go calling Cindy McStealsdrugs a “trollop”. Show some class and, as her husband does, call her a “cunt”.
Given his age, and his statistical likelihood of developing some form of dementia in the next 10 years (I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s higher than normal given his POW experience), I’m all for neuropsychological evaluation–and would be for a Democrat of the same age.
“Show some class and, as her husband does, call her a “cunt”.”
Neither I nor Mr. McCain said she was a trollop. We just said she wore her make-up like a trollop.
The whole “show us all medical records” thing makes me uneasy. While he is running for POTUS, we have to consider that any employer who demanded such intimate personal knowledge could be in deep trouble, and for good reason. Too much detail, not enough pattern recognition to really work with, and entirely a farcical circus when politics are concerned. Oh, yeah, that huge uncertainty around any diagnosis or prognosis.
Oh yeah, Obama smokes. Smoking amps up any inherent risk of heart disease and stroke, particularly at his age.
Maybe McSame was simply differentiating Dominici from Pablo Picasso?
Black people in particular are more prone to diseases like asthma and breast cancer and AIDS and god knows what else than white people.
Excuse me, black people are more prone to AIDS?
Pam, can we ban Foucault now? Pretty please? If nothing else for the bizarre belief that black people are just, y’know, naturally prone to who-knows-what diseases than nice clean white people.
Black people in particular are more prone to diseases like asthma
Which, of course, is completely and totally genetic and racial and has nothing–I repeat NOTHING–to do with something like, say, poor living conditions rife with cockroach feces and rat dander…
Personally, I’d like a mental profile on every presidential candidate. I like to think that fewer people would have voted for a narcissistic, sociopathic dry drunk in 2000.
Hey, I can dream, can’t I?
McCain doesn’t have to show us his medical records. He recently told an audience at Wake Forest University that the right to privacy is bogus–but I still believe in it.
On the other hand, McCain’s making an extraordinary sales pitch that no reasonable person should accept on faith: that a 71-year-old man with a history of invasive melanoma is physically healthy enough to withstand the strains of the presidency.
McCain could be right, but we’d be suckers to take his claim at face value.
We need some independent assurances that he’s as healthy as he says he is. There’s a separate question about how likely McCain is to remain healthy, given the health problems he’s already had. The latter is a hypothetical and difficult to assess. The thing is, McCain hasn’t even established the former question. His bogus eyes-only partial records review for handpicked stenographers was an insult to the intelligence of the electorate and the press.
When McCain signed up to be a pilot, he had to convince doctors of his physical and psychological fitness. The Navy wasn’t going to trust him with a plane unless he could prove he was healthy and stable enough to handle it. Now, he’s applying to be president. If he wants to be a credible candidate in the eyes of many voters, he’s going to have to relinquish some of his personal privacy in order to ally very real concerns about his fitness to lead.
Obama quit smoking.
You know, i actually agree with Focault that the health of someone is for the most part NOT something i want to be basing not electing someone on. but as was pointed out, it does have some validity.
Life threatening ilness is something that needs to be known about a president, and i actually would be all for any presidential canidate getting a full mental screening as well.
On the otherhand i will not even consider assasination chance to be equal in the slightest with health problems. It is in fact the worst form of terrorism. (god, i hate that word these days, it always sounds corney and republican to use, even when it’s the correct word)
I suppose in the end I really am just sick of being told to stop aiming for my dreams, and instead aim for a sloppy halfassed attempt because my dreams are nothing of any worth. er, sorry, my dreams aren’t electable.
P.S. if you really meant that argument that talking about mcains health is about as valid as talking about assasinability, that is an argument i would engage calmly, and rationally. What you posted had no indication that that was what you were aiming for, and i took you to be a troll of the lowest order. sorry about that.
It’s not that no one is talking/should be talking about the risk of Obama being assassinated. Goodness, a black Secret Serviceman reported a white Secret Serviceman for putting up a noose in his office. There’s quite a bit of racism within the Secret Service– the men who are supposed to be willing to take bullets for the person they are guarding. Unless someone’s being very careful about assignments, we may have guards who would cheer for the gunman, not take the bullet. The same may be true of their attitude to a woman candidate, but that’s a less known thing.
But, for one candidate to talk about the possibility of another candidate being assassinated shows a indifference to social norms. You can talk about being worried your grandma in the hospital might die. You aren’t supposed to say “and if she did, I guess I can afford to buy gas this summer”. We have a cultural taboo against openly looking forward to profiting from someone’s death. Many people ignore the taboo– but would we want them as POTUS?
Us talking about McCain’s health, otoh, is not something taboo, because none of us are going to be his choice for running mate.
Cat of many faces,
I am also sorry for our original miscommunication. I think your dreams (if they are Obama based) are electable. And I would actually be fine with supporting Obama if his yahoo cult following–as well as the MSM, an entity that does not necessarily support either Democratic candidate–could cease to create divisions among potential Democratic voters. At this point, I think it is valuable to start looking for the things on which both Clinton’s supporters and Obama’s supporters can agree. I want them to unite, if only for the good of the party. They can secretly hate each other all they want!
What Clinton said about assassinations in June was probably not the smartest thing she could have said, but I totally take her at her word that this was an accident and not malicious. Moreover, black people are clearly not the only people who get assassinated, so for her to apologize to Obama for this is ridiculous.
As for McCain, he’s an old man and he probably would not make the best President, but it is his right to run if he is healthy and won the delegates he needed.
As for my own poor choice of words, I should try not to be such an asshole. I know that I write appalling things because this is an anonymous forum where people can do that. I would be more cautious and thoughtful were we talking face-to-face.
I should have said that there are hereditary diseases which have a greater incidence within a particular racial group. Familial dysautonomia is virtually limited to Eastern European Jews. For hundreds of years, diabetes was thought to be transmitted among blacks and Jews. Even Jewish scientists at the turn of the century accepted the racial stigmatization of diabetes, and the racial “inferiority” associated with the illness. Of course, as we know today, diabetes is not a race-based disease, although some racial groups continue to have a higher incidence than others.
Among all racial and ethnic groups, Puerto Ricans actually have the highest rate of lifetime asthma, and Mexicans have the lowest. Non-Hispanic blacks and American Indians are about 25% more likely to be diagnosed with asthma than non-Hispanic whites.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/asthma/asthma.htm
I suspect that living environment and location have something to do with asthma rates. For example, if you live next to an industrial site that pollutes heavily, our children may be more prone to asthma.
Nevertheless, my basic point was that people should not be discriminated against based on genetic history or prior medical conditions that they have experienced.
You know, I really don’t think any candidate should feel compelled to turn over their health records for public scrutiny. In law, we recognize doctor-patient privilege for a specific reason: people need to be free to speak the truth to their doctors without fear. Privilege and confidentiality help keep what you say to your doctor private.
If a candidate keeps his medical affairs secret, I’ve got no problem with that. And neither should you.
If that was your point you should have named actual hereditary diseases. AIDS is not a hereditary disease. Breast cancer can sometimes have hereditary links, but the vast majority of women who get it have no genetic history of it, and the known genetic marker is for Ashkenazi Jews, not African-Americans. More black women die of breast cancer because of our horrible health insurance system, not because they’re “more prone” to it.
You basically implied that black people are more prone to catching diseases than white people, so Obama is just as likely to come down with AIDS as McCain is to have a recurrence of melanoma that he’s already been diagnosed and treated for twice. That’s not being an asshole — that’s being a fucking racist, and it’s not exactly the first time you’ve done it, either.
Bite me, mnemosyne. I was talking about both hereditary diseases and discrimination based on prior medical history. AIDS is a lifelong disease/virus that disproportionately affects black people in America and elsewhere in the world (particularly Africa).
Unlike you, I am happy to admit my racism. But it won’t prevent me from voting for Obama if he wins the nomination, and it doesn’t prevent me from trying to help people see that they are championing forms of discrimination that are sure to have a particularly adverse effect on certain racial groups.
“Go Duck yourself,” as McCain would say.
Richard, it’s not a legal obligation. There’s no law that requires a presidential candidate to disclose his or her medical records. Nor should there be. (Ironically, McCain doesn’t believe there’s such a thing as a legal right to privacy, but we don’t have to sink to his level.)
It’s the candidate’s choice how much of his private information he wants to share.
It’s the voter’s right to reject a candidate who can’t or won’t clear up well-founded doubts about his fitness for office.
Health is a legitimate consideration when choosing a candidate for the most powerful office in the world.
There are two key questions here:
1) Is McCain healthy now? He claims he’s cancer free, but he won’t even give his hand-picked reporters enough access to his medical records to form an intelligent opinion.
2) Given his medical history, how likely is McCain to remain healthy through his presidency.
Some people are uncomfortable about taking (2) into account. They say it’s speculative. I think it’s a fair question to ask, but I can accept their position.
(1) is non-negotiable. McCain thinks it’s worth showing his medical records to the press. That’s his choice. Clearly his campaign advisers accept that questions about his health are legitimate. But if he’s going to go the disclosure route, we deserve real disclosure, not the fake “eyes-only” media event he’s given us so far.
If you’re not healthy enough to lead, nothing else matters. Do you want a president juggling chemo and statecraft?
McCain had a very public bout with a medical condition that kills a third of the people who get it within 10 years of diagnosis. McCain has had at least four melanomas, plus a more recent basal cell cancer.
I think mental health evaluations are good and should be mandated for every citizen who wants to vote. If you look at the wingnut sites today they are calling for drug testing of Obama because of his series of mental lapses and mistakes on a hard campaign trail.
I think people who call for mental health evaluations of others are more of the problem than the solution.
Given Obama’s self-reported dug use and the fact that drug tests are a routine part of many workplaces, I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask him to take a drug test.
And I would expect anyone running for President to do that. A daily breath-alyzer for Cheney would have been a great idea from the get-go!
I would think that a gay american, whose sexuality used to classified as an illness in the DSM would be more cautious about advocating mental health evaluations for others….
Lyndon Johnson, I believe, used a Goldwater was crazy and would go nuclear argument. Ironically for this post of yours, Goldwater may have been the President that would have let gays into the Armed Forces without restriction.
In 2000 McCain provided copies of his medical records to the press. In 2008, he has provided access to the records, but he is not providing copies or allowing the reporters to make copies of the records.
However, media access has changed a lot since 2000. During that campaign, most people did not have high-speed internet, blogging was far less prominent an outlet, and nobody had the bandwidth to provide large files to the public.
In 2000, if a reporter got 1000 pages of medical records, he would read them and write a story about whatever was salient in them.
Today, if 1000 pages of medical records were given to the press, they would be PDFed in their entirety on a million websites and available forever. No political candidate has ever been subjected to such public scrutiny, and voters have never considered themselves entitled to such expansive access.
As for McCain’s temper, I think a lot of those people are exactly what he called them. McCain decided to wage a personal crusade around reforming legislative policies that are detrimental, but which aren’t well-understood by the public. He sees people getting screwed over in favor of interests and their lobbyists. The voters don’t know and don’t really care, legislators in both parties benefit enormously from the status quo.
McCain’s reform efforts earned him enmity from the Republican Congressional leadership, and disadvantaged him politically. I would guess that one of the few perks that comes with advocating policies that are disfavored by those in charge is that you don’t have to kiss ass, defer to rank, or be nice to people you think are fucking jerks.
I don’t think there are many here who would disagree with McCain’s assessments of various Republicans, and it’s kind of interesting that he seems to heap most of his enmity on his own party.
Mitch, McCain only shared his medical records with handpicked journalists in 2000.
This time around, he was even more evasive. He only let reporters from two papers and two wire services look at some of his records for 4 hours without allowing them to make copies. We know nothing more about McCain’s health than we did before this dog and pony show.
Like I’ve said before, McCain has no obligation to tell us anything about his health. But if that’s how he feels about it, then he should be honest with the press and the public about that decision. He doesn’t have the guts to say “my health is private”–so he sets up a media circus to congratulate himself on his transparency. The press are stupid enough to think that he’s refreshingly candid. They eat it up.
McCain’s no maverick, he’s an old school Republican who surrounds himself with lobbyists and media consultants.
Sorry, two papers and three wire services.
McCain’s non-release of his medical records is equivalent to handing a urine sample to reporters and saying “Sniff this and tell them I’m drug-free.”
It’s a pointless display orchestrated to give the appearance of candor while
providing no useful information.
Nobody forced McCain to release his medical records in the first place. If he didn’t want to, he should have shown some real courage, bucked public opinion, and taken the hit.
It’s disgraceful, and typical, for McCain to market himself as setting a new standard of transparency while engaging in a misdirection campaign. He did the same thing with the Senate Indian Affairs Committee investigation of the Abramoff scandal. He made a big show of revealing 3% of the documents he collected, while sitting on the other 97% in order to shield himself and his lobbyist buddies.
*facepalm*